DOCSLIB.ORG

Action Plan for 2018-2019

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Action Plan for 2018-2019 Open Government Partnership Action Plan of Georgia 2018-2019 1 | Page TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction . 3 Action Plan Elaboration Process . 3 Open Government Partnership Forum . 3 Public Consultations . 4 Civil Society Recommendations . 4 Innovations of the Third Action Plan . 5 CHALLENGE I: IMPROVING PUBLIC SERVICES . 6 Commitment 1: Improved public services for all . 6 Commitment 2: Innovative platform for citizen engagement . 8 Commitment 3: Increasing access to public services by introduction of a Unified Authentication System (UAS) . 9 Commitment 4: Innovative platform of economic governance . 11 Commitment 5: Activation of an electronic portal for meeting the Environmental Assessment Code Requirements . 12 CHALLENGE II: INCREASING PUBLIC INTEGRITY . 13 Commitment 6: Strengthening of existing major Anti-Corruption Institutions . 13 Commitment 7: Public monitoring of sustainable development goals (SDGs) . 15 Commitment 8: Development of legislative acts based on citizen engagement and data analysis . 16 Commitment 9: Publication of court decisions on a unified database and creation of a Retrieval system . 17 Commitment 10: Increasing transparency of the Ministry of Internal Affairs . 18 CHALLENGE III: MORE EFFECTIVELY MANAGING PUBLIC RESOURCES . 19 Commitment 11: Increasing citizen participation in the oversight of public finances . 19 Commitment 12: Increasing transparency of the public grant funding system 21 Commitment 13: Electronic innovations for more transparency and efficiency of public procurement . 22 CHALLENGE IV: CREATING SAFER COMMUNITIES . 23 Commitment 14: Development of a housing document and an action plan . 23 CHALLENGE V: INCREASING CORPORATE ACCOUNTABILITY . 24 Commitment 15: Openness and accountability of state-sharing enterprises . 24 MUNICIPALITIES . 25 Commitment 1: Strengthening transparency and good governance in municipalities. 25 . Commitment 2: Improving the open data collection and publishing process in Akhaltsikhe and Kutaisi municipalities . 27 Commitment 3: Improving full-value engagement and participation of people with disabilities in political and social life in Akhaltsikhe and Kutaisi municipalities . 28 Commitment 4: Improving citizen engagement in budgetary processes in Batumi City by 29 introduction of an institutional mechanism of participatory budgeting . Commitment 5: Your Idea for the Zugdidi Mayor . 30 Commitment 6: Introduction and development of electronic services in Batumi and 31 Rustavi municipalities . Commitment 7: I. Gov. Zugdidi . 32 Commitment 8: Introduction of services assessment and citizen satisfaction level measurement system in Ozurgeti Municipality . 33 Annex . 35 2 | Page Introduction The Government of Georgia considers the openness of governance, its transparency, accountability and engagement of citizens in the decision-making process as vital values for a democratic society and therefore, faithfully continues introducing fundamental principles of the Open Government Partnership (OGP) into the public governance. Georgia was one of the first countries to join OGP in 2011 and has already accomplished several essential reforms in the framework of the previous three Action Plans. In 2014, Georgia became a Steering Committee member of OGP; later in 2016 Georgia became a co-chair country of the Partnership. As a co-chair country, Georgia hosted the Fifth Global Summit of OGP on 17- 19 July, 2018. Representatives from over 70 countries, hundreds of CSOs, international organizations, academic circles and mass media took part in the event. Up to 80 plenary and panel sessions were held. This document is the fourth OGP Action Plan of Georgia. Action Plan Elaboration Process Open Government Georgia’s Action Plan 2018-2019 (hereinafter - the Action Plan) was elaborated by the Open Government Georgia’s Secretariat (the Analytical Department of the Ministry of Justice of Georgia) in close collaboration with civil society, business sector and international organizations in the framework of the Open Government Georgia’s Forum (hereinafter - the Forum). The Secretariat launched its working process in collaboration with the Forum member public agencies, non-governmental and international organizations. The latter submitted the proposals and ideas on the future commitments to the Secretariat that, in their opinion, should have become part of the new Action Plan. Additionally, the Secretariat held individual meetings with the agencies not previously engaged in the activities of the Open Government Georgia. Nongovernmental and international organizations have also submitted their recommendations to the Secretariat. Their ideas have been reflected in the Action Plan in the form of commitments. The USAID project Good Governance Initiative in Georgia (GGI) took an active part and supported the Secretariat in the consultation process. After the consultation meetings, the GGI project submitted recommendations to the Secretariat which were later reflected in the Action Part. Open Government Partnership Forum – National Coordination Mechanism The Forum is a permanent coordination mechanism for Open Government Georgia at the national level. The goals of the Forum, its activities and other procedural issues are reflected in the Forum Terms of Reference developed by the Secretariat together with the Forum members. The composition of the Forum is gradually increasing to better represent the responsible agencies and local and international organizations. As a result of development of the fourth Action Plan, the Forum increased its membership by 8 new members. The Forum is led by co-chairs, one to represent the Government of Georgia and another to represent NGOs. The NGOs jointly nominate their candidate to the Forum to be elected by the Forum. Among other functions, the Forum supports elaboration of the Action Plan, plans and conducts public consultations, 3 | Page monitors and supports the Action Plan implementation, and raises public awareness about the Open Government Partnership. The Forum regularly meets on the premises of the Ministry of Justice of Georgia. Together with regular working meetings, individual meetings and intensive consultations were also arranged between the Secretariat, responsible agencies and civil society. The final draft of the Action Plan was approved on July 13, 2018 by the Forum. Public Consultations According to the OGP regulations, the Forum, with the direct participation of NGOs/CSOs, elaborated the Countrywide Public Consultations Plan: the objective and scope of meetings, as well as responsible persons for holding such meetings from the government and non-government sector have been detailed in the mentioned plan. Public consultations were held in 10 towns and cities of Georgia with the support of USAID Civic Engagement Centers and Community Centers of Public Service Development Agency. Up to 500 stakeholders participated in 13 meetings conducted across the country. Target groups for public consultations included: representatives of local government, media, NGOs, political parties, students, teachers, professors, and other stakeholders. Local media contributed to the processes as well. Not only were they involved in consultations as participants, but they also ensured coverage of the process and disseminating the information about the possibility for citizens’ participation in the process. Recommendations by NGOs/CSOs The Secretariat received recommendations in connection with the NAP commitments was presented from several CSOs. These included: Institute for Development of Freedom of Information (IDFI), Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association (GYLA), Transparency International Georgia (TIG), and Open Society – Georgia Foundation. Recommendations were also submitted to the Secretariat by the USAID and UNDP. In order to share those recommendations, the Secretariat arranged individual meetings with the relevant agencies. As a result, part of the recommendations was reflected in the relevant commitments of the Action Plan. The recommendations and the Action Plan were finally discussed at the extended meeting of the Forum on July 13, 2018. At the same meeting the Forum agreed on the final version of the Action Plan. Overview of the Action Plan The Action Plan consists of 23 commitments of 21 responsible agencies which are in compliance with the OGP principles. The commitments envisaged by the Action Plan meet all the five grand challenges of OGP: Improving Public Services, Increasing Public Integrity, More Effectively Managing Public Resources, Creating Safer Communities, and Increasing Corporate Accountability. The Challenge of Improving Public Services comprises five commitments: - Improved public services for all; - Innovative platform of citizen engagement; - Increasing access to public services through introduction of a unified system of authentication; - Innovative platform of economic governance; 4 | Page - Activation of an electronic portal for meeting the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Code. Five commitments envisaged by the Action Plan are related to Increasing Public Integrity. These are: - Consolidation of the existing main anti-corruption institution; - Public monitoring of sustainable development goals; - Development of legislative acts based on citizen engagement and data analysis; - Publishing court decisions in a unified database and creation of a retrieval system; - Increasing transparency of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MIA). The Challenge More Effectively Managing Public Resources is addressed by three key commitments of
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Rehabilitation of the Historical Museum of Khoni Environmental
    Public Disclosure Authorized Rehabilitation of the Historical Museum of Khoni Public Disclosure Authorized Environmental and Social Screening Report Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized March 2018 Sub-Project Description The Sub-Project (SP) will be implemented in the city of Khoni. Historical Museum is located in the center of the city, on the way to Okatse Canyon, making museum attractive to foreign, as well as to domestic tourists. According to the data of the National Tourism Agency of Georgia, an average of 700,000 tourists visit Imereti annually. The foreigners comprise approximately 25% of visitors, out of which at least 70% visit the city of Khoni, Okatse Canyon and Khoni Museum, which are included in tourist route of Khoni. In order to ensure the tourist flow in the city of Khoni increases further, it is necessary to further develop tourist infrastructure, protect the museum building and provide a secure environment. The Historical Museum of Khoni is located in the touristic zone. The museum was founded in 1981 and building is renowned for its architecture and location. The museum houses a rich collection of archaeological material of excavations in Khoni municipality, from the Paleolithic age to late Feudal age, including ceramics, copper, metal exhibits of bronze age, numismatic collections (one of the largest collections of Colchic Tetri in the VI century BC (990 units in total)), ethnographic material and other artifacts. The museum has an open-air exhibition space as well. Even though the renovation of the building has been carried out, the museum is not equipped with exposition equipment, cabinets, nightstands, exhibition platforms and lighting system.
    [Show full text]
  • YOUTH POLICY IMPLEMENTATION at the LOCAL LEVEL: IMERETI and TBILISI © Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung
    YOUTH POLICY IMPLEMENTATION AT THE LOCAL LEVEL: IMERETI AND TBILISI © Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung This Publication is funded by Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung. The views expressed in this publication are not necessarily those of the Friedrich-Ebert Stiftung. Commercial use of all media published by the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES) is not permitted without the written consent of the FES. YOUTH POLICY IMPLEMENTATION AT THE LOCAL LEVEL: IMERETI AND TBILISI Tbilisi 2020 Youth Policy Implementation at the Local Level: Imereti and Tbilisi Tbilisi 2020 PUBLISHERS Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, South Caucasus South Caucasus Regional Offi ce Ramishvili Str. Blind Alley 1, #1, 0179 http://www.fes-caucasus.org Tbilisi, Georgia Analysis and Consulting Team (ACT) 8, John (Malkhaz) Shalikashvili st. Tbilisi, 0131, Georgia Parliament of Georgia, Sports and Youth Issues Committee Shota Rustaveli Avenue #8 Tbilisi, Georgia, 0118 FOR PUBLISHER Felix Hett, FES, Salome Alania, FES AUTHORS Plora (Keso) Esebua (ACT) Sopho Chachanidze (ACT) Giorgi Rukhadze (ACT) Sophio Potskhverashvili (ACT) DESIGN LTD PolyGraph, www.poly .ge TYPESETTING Gela Babakishvili TRANSLATION & PROOFREADING Lika Lomidze Eter Maghradze Suzanne Graham COVER PICTURE https://www.freepik.com/ PRINT LTD PolyGraph PRINT RUN 150 pcs ISBN 978-9941-8-2018-2 Attitudes, opinions and conclusions expressed in this publication- not necessarily express attitudes of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung does not vouch for the accuracy of the data stated in this publication. © Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung 2020 FOREWORD Youth is important. Many hopes are attached to the “next generation” – societies tend to look towards the young to bring about a value change, to get rid of old habits, and to lead any country into a better future.
    [Show full text]
  • 6. Imereti – Historical-Cultural Overview
    SFG2110 SECOND REGIONAL DEVELOPMETN PROJECT IMERETI REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM IMERETI TOURISM DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY Public Disclosure Authorized STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL, CULTURAL HERITAGE AND SOCIAL ASSESSMENT Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Tbilisi, December, 2014 ABBREVIATIONS GNTA Georgia National Tourism Administration EIA Environnemental Impact Assessment EMP Environmental Management Plan EMS Environmental Management System IFI International Financial Institution IRDS Imereti Regional Development Strategy ITDS Imereti Tourism Development Strategy MDF Municipal Development Fund of Georgia MoA Ministry of Agriculture MoENRP Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources Protection of Georgia MoIA Ministry of Internal Affairs MoCMP Ministry of Culture and Monument Protection MoJ Ministry of Justice MoESD Ministry of Economic and Sustaineble Developmnet NACHP National Agency for Cultural Heritage Protection PIU Project Implementation Unit PPE Personal protective equipment RDP Regional Development Project SECHSA Strategic Environmental, Cultural Heritage and Social Assessment WB World Bank Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................... 0 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 14 1.1 PROJECT CONTEXT ...............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Presidential Election First Interim Report of the Pre-Election Monitoring
    2018 Presidential Election First Interim Report of the Pre-Election Monitoring (August 1 - September 8) 13 September 2018 This report is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Views expressed in this publication belong solely to the International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID, the United States Government or the NED. Table of Contents I. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 2 II. Key Findings ........................................................................................................................................ 2 III. Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 4 IV. Electoral Administration ............................................................................................................. 5 Appointment of Temporary Members of DECs ................................................................................. 5 V. Media environment ........................................................................................................................ 9 VI. Intimidation/harassment on alleged political grounds ...................................................... 12 VII. Physical confrontation ..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Realizing the Urban Potential in Georgia: National Urban Assessment
    REALIZING THE URBAN POTENTIAL IN GEORGIA National Urban Assessment ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK REALIZING THE URBAN POTENTIAL IN GEORGIA NATIONAL URBAN ASSESSMENT ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 IGO license (CC BY 3.0 IGO) © 2016 Asian Development Bank 6 ADB Avenue, Mandaluyong City, 1550 Metro Manila, Philippines Tel +63 2 632 4444; Fax +63 2 636 2444 www.adb.org Some rights reserved. Published in 2016. Printed in the Philippines. ISBN 978-92-9257-352-2 (Print), 978-92-9257-353-9 (e-ISBN) Publication Stock No. RPT168254 Cataloging-In-Publication Data Asian Development Bank. Realizing the urban potential in Georgia—National urban assessment. Mandaluyong City, Philippines: Asian Development Bank, 2016. 1. Urban development.2. Georgia.3. National urban assessment, strategy, and road maps. I. Asian Development Bank. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) or its Board of Governors or the governments they represent. ADB does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this publication and accepts no responsibility for any consequence of their use. This publication was finalized in November 2015 and statistical data used was from the National Statistics Office of Georgia as available at the time on http://www.geostat.ge The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers does not imply that they are endorsed or recommended by ADB in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. By making any designation of or reference to a particular territory or geographic area, or by using the term “country” in this document, ADB does not intend to make any judgments as to the legal or other status of any territory or area.
    [Show full text]
  • Educational Needs Assessment of Khoni Municipality Population
    Educational Needs Assessment of Khoni Municipality Population Authors: Lela Javakhishvili Tornike Korkotashvili Editor: Diana Lezhava Research Supervisor: Dr. Lia Tsuladze Tbilisi 2019 Table of Contents: Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 4 Khoni Municipality .............................................................................................................................. 4 Educational needs in Georgia ............................................................................................................. 5 Research Method .................................................................................................................................... 6 Main Findings .......................................................................................................................................... 7 Demographic characteristics of the focus group participants ............................................................ 7 Economic situation in the municipality ............................................................................................... 7 The main source of income for local population ................................................................................. 9 Major employment opportunities in the municipality .....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 53178-001: East–West Highway (Shorapani–Argveta Section) Improvement Project
    Environmental Impact Assessment Project Number: 53178-001 May 2019 GEO: East–West Highway (Shorapani–Argveta Section) Improvement Project Part 8 (Sections F–G) Prepared by the Roads Department of the Ministry of Regional Development and Infrastructure of Georgia for the Asian Development Bank. This environmental impact assessment is a document of the borrower. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of ADB's Board of Directors, Management, or staff, and may be preliminary in nature. Your attention is directed to the “terms of use” section on ADB’s website. In preparing any country program or strategy, financing any project, or by making any designation of or reference to a particular territory or geographic area in this document, the Asian Development Bank does not intend to make any judgments as to the legal or other status of any territory or area. Section F4 of the Khevi-Ubisa-Shorapani-Argveta Road (E60 Highway) Environmental Impact Assessment Sample ID Coordinates Rationale for Site Selection SW02 42 ° 06’12.29”N / 43° 03’57.67”E At location of Bridge BRI 4.1.04-AT/TA, Kvirila River Figure 48: Surface Water Monitoring Locations 443. The results of the water quality monitoring are presented in Table 34 below show that both the Dzirula and Kvirila rivers meet the national MACs for surface water quality at the sampling locations, although the levels of manganese in the Kvirila sample was above the recommended standards for drinking water. This reflects the findings of the study on manganese in the Kvirila river
    [Show full text]
  • Consolidated Report on Implementation of Regional Development Programme of Georgia 2018-2021 for the Year 2019
    Consolidated Report on Implementation of Regional Development Programme of Georgia 2018-2021 for the year 2019 Department for Regional and Mountain Development Ministry of Regional Development and Infrastructure of Georgia 2020 1 INTRODUCTION 3 PART I: ANALYSIS OF THE PROGRESS ACHIEVED BY MEASURES ENVISAGED IN THE PRIORITIES 8 Priority 1. Improvement of key infrastructure supporting competitiveness and environmental sustainability of the country and its regions 8 Measure 1.1. Improvement of international and national road infrastructure 8 Measure 1.2. Development of other than road strategic transport infrastructure 10 Measure 1.3. Development of broadband infrastructure 11 Measure 1.4. Improvement of energy infrastructure and expanding renewable energy potential 14 Measure 1.5 Improvement of infrastructure for protection from natural disasters 16 Measure 1.6. Development of water, wastewater and solid waste management infrastructure 17 Measure 1.8. Preserving and promoting natural heritage (national parks, strict nature reserves, protected areas of other categories) 22 Priority 2. Support to SMEs, growth-oriented sectors of economy and export promotion 23 Measure 2.1. Support to Enterprises, including SMEs 23 Measure 2.2. Support to innovation 24 Measure 2.3 Support to strategic sectors: Tourism 29 Measure 2.5 Export Promotion 34 Priority 3: Developing Human Capital 36 Measure 3.1 Increasing the quality of general education 36 Measure 3.2 Improving the system of vocational education 38 Measure 3.3 Increasing the quality of higher education
    [Show full text]
  • National Assessment of Georgian Municipalities (2019)
    RESULTS FOR 2019 1 61% Batumi 60 9% Samtredia 2 57% Rustavi 61 8% Adigeni 3 56% Lagodekhi 62 7% Aspindza NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF 4 55% Zugdidi 63 7% Ninotsminda GEORGIAN MUNICIPALITIES 5 52% Tetritskaro 64 6% Akhalkalaki (2019) 4 60 3 1 61 5 2 62 64 63 28% % 21% 31% % 24% 19% 25% 2017 2019 2017 2019 AVERAGE SCORE 2017 2019 MUNICIPAL COUNCIL CITY HALL Municipalities with Biggest Improvements Compared to 2017 www.lsgindex.org +34% +26% +25% +24% +23% Batumi City Senaki Tsageri Tetritskaro Tsalenjikha Municipality Municipality Municipality Municipality Municipality RESULTS FOR 2019 1 61% Batumi 60 9% Samtredia 2 57% Rustavi 61 8% Adigeni 3 56% Lagodekhi 62 7% Aspindza NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF 4 55% Zugdidi 63 7% Ninotsminda GEORGIAN MUNICIPALITIES 5 52% Tetritskaro 64 6% Akhalkalaki (2019) 4 60 3 1 61 5 2 62 64 63 28% 31% 21% 24% 19% 25% 2017 2019 2017 2019 AVERAGE SCORE 2017 2019 MUNICIPAL COUNCIL CITY HALL Municipalities with Biggest Improvements Compared to 2017 www.lsgindex.org +34% +26% +25% +24% +23% Batumi City Senaki Tsageri Tetritskaro Tsalenjikha Municipality Municipality Municipality Municipality Municipality Proactive Disclosure of Public Information Participation and Accountability Administrative General The Council of Civil Advisors 7% Expenses 50% Information is yet to be created in MUNICIPALITIES 11% 11 Legal 40% Entities Legal Acts and Court Decisions 19% 33% Budget Property Only 26 MAYORS MAJORITY OF MEMBERS of only 15 held public hearings of their municipal councils held public hearings of 29% performance reports their performance
    [Show full text]
  • 2 Information About the Capital Project Implementation
    Information about the Capital Project Implementation 2015 Next Plan 2015 Code Name Actual 2014 approved cash basis Year 25 02 02 01 Regular reconstruction and rehabilitation of roads 1,045,815.10 110,848.40 110,842.80 435,000.00 25 02 02 07 coastal protection works 19,421.90 6,814.40 6,808.40 40,000.00 Tianeti -Zaridzeebi- Zhinvali road construction, reconstruction 25 02 02 08 and rehabilitation work 5,450.00 7,730.00 7,724.80 5,000.00 25 02 02 09 Secondary and local Road project II (WB) 102,379.20 9,084.00 8,434.90 10,000.00 25 02 02 10 Secondary and local Road project III (WB) 7,387.50 27,444.00 26,461.10 105,000.00 25 02 02 11 01 Kakheti Regional Roads Development Project (WB) 45,261.40 8,400.00 7,988.80 0 Kutaisi (Nikea str.) - Geguti node section reconstruction- 25 02 02 12 modernization 807.8 1,975.00 1,973.20 3,000.00 Stepantsminda- Sameba Church Road 1-6 st-km section 25 02 02 13 construction- reconstruction 63 95 94.5 4,000.00 25 02 03 01 East-West transit autobahn III (Sveneti Ruisi)(WB) 304,084.70 2,930.00 2,897.60 0 Additional Financing for the Third East-West Highway 25 02 03 02 Improvement Project (Ruisi-Agara) (WB) 52,335.20 28,520.00 27,116.30 5,000.00 25 02 03 03 Fourth East-West Highway Improvement Project (WB) 31,106.50 33,039.20 32,427.90 85,000.00 25 02 03 05 Road Corridor Investment Program (Kobuleti Bypass Road) 01 (ADB) 247,338.60 49,747.00 49,625.80 120,000.00 East-West Highway Improvement Project (Zestafoni - Kutaisi - 25 02 03 06 Samtredia) (JICA) 246,408.60 99,910.00 98,640.50 50,000.00 East-West Highway Improvement
    [Show full text]
  • Educational Needs Assessment of Khoni Municipality Labor Market
    Educational Needs Assessment of Khoni Municipality Labor Market Authors: Lela Javakhishvili Tornike Korkotashvili Editor: Diana Lezhava Research Supervisor: Dr. Lia Tsuladze Tbilisi 2019 Table of Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................... 3 Intruduction .................................................................................................................................................. 4 Khoni Municipality .................................................................................................................................... 4 Educational needs in Georgia ................................................................................................................... 5 Research Method .......................................................................................................................................... 7 Main Findings ................................................................................................................................................ 8 Priority criterions during recruitment ....................................................................................................... 9 Knowledge and skills demanded by the local labor market .................................................................... 12 Non-formal education in Khoni labor market ......................................................................................... 16
    [Show full text]
  • Compliance of Social and Health Care Programs of Local Self-Governments with the Principle of Equality
    COMPLIANCE OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH CARE PROGRAMS OF LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENTS WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY 2021 This publication was prepared in the framework of the UN Women project “Good Governance for Gender Equality in Georgia” generously funded by the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of UN Women, the United Nations or any of its affiliated organizations or that of the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Table of Contents Introduction 4 Terms and criteria inciting discrimination 5 Discriminatory programs on the ground of sex 7 Programs tailored to the needs of persons with disabilities 8 Accessibility for persons with permission of permanent residence 12 Age discriminatory regulations 14 Marriage status/registration request 15 Duration of registration/residence at the municipality 16 Place of birth 18 Detailed characteristics of the program 18 Conclusion 19 Recommendations 21 Introduction The Public Defender repeatedly referred in its recommendations1 and reports2 the importance of implementation of the principle of equality in social and health care programs and the challenges existing in the country in this regard. The Ombudsman on the one hand, focused on the problematic issues of programs at the central level and, on the other hand, stressed the existence of discriminatory criteria while identifying target groups in social and health care programs developed by local governments. The practice of the Public Defender has shown that often, the health and social programs proposed by municipalities contain discriminatory criteria on various grounds. These programs have a special impact on the health and quality of life of vulnerable groups, as they are considered to be the main beneficiaries.
    [Show full text]